IMAX CEO: Screen Size Isn’t Everything

Actor/comedian Aziz Ansari (Observe and Report) got royally ticked off earlier this month when he went to an IMAX screening of Star Trek. Ansari expected a 72-foot screen and didn’t get it.

“I drove out of my way to see the film on the large IMAX screen and paid an extra $5 for the ticket,” he wrote in a caustic blog post calling for a boycott of what he called “fake” IMAX screens. “However, we get in the theater and it’s just a slightly bigger than normal screen and not the usual standard huge 72-foot IMAX screen. I was very upset.

“Some people at Regal and AMC both wanted to call these screens IMAX Digital so as to differentiate it somehow from the giant IMAX screens people are used to associating with the name IMAX…. Well, I have a better term. How about — “Bullshit IMAX.” Cause that’s what it is.”

Ansari’s rant, and a follow-up post in which he challenged IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond to a televised debate on the subject, struck a nerve, generating thousands of comments. Moviegoers from around the country pitched in data to create a crowd-sourced Google map labeled “IMAX or LIEMAX?” (see above), documenting the relative sizes of IMAX theaters around the country.

All of which raises a reasonable question: IMAX theaters are supposed to have humongous screens, right?

Not necessarily, according to the company.

“There is no standard,” says IMAX spokeswoman Sarah Gormley. “The 72-foot thing has gotten out there but even in the older museums and science centers, those screens vary. It’s not about a particular width and height of the screen. It’s about the geometry. Some people online are very stuck on: ’72-foot wide — that’s the standard.’ It was never the standard.”

One of four big summer movies being shown at IMAX theaters, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian features Ivan the Terrible (played by Christopher Guest, left), Al Capone (Jon Bernthal) and Napoleon Bonaparte (Alain Chabat). Photo courtesy 20th Century Fox.

The controversy comes as Hollywood looks to premium theater experiences like IMAX and 3-D to lure moviegoers to the multiplexes for first-run flicks.

Through his publicist, Ansari declined comment for Wired.com’s story. But IMAX CEO Gelfond responded, speaking by phone from Washington, D.C.’s Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian premiere at the Smithsonian Institute.

“I don’t want to give the impression that the screen isn’t an added element,” Gelfond said, “but it’s not nearly the only element. There’s a lot of pieces.”

There are also a lot of IMAX theaters – 320 worldwide – charging moviegoers an extra $3 to $5 for the privilege of seeing an enhanced version of tent-pole movies. Battle for the Smithsonian, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will all be shown in IMAX this summer, as will December’s 3-D Avatar.

Gelfond admits that some newer IMAX screens are smaller than those installed in older, “legacy” theaters, but maintains that his company’s technology also provides better sound and a brighter, higher-resolution picture along with wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screens.

What do you think? Is IMAX worth the higher ticket price? Weigh in with your comments following the complete Q&A with Gelfond below.

Wired.com: IMAX screens vary in size from one venue to another, right? Here in Los Angeles, for example, there’s a huge IMAX theater at Universal City Walk and then there’s the IMAX theater in Burbank described by Aziz Ansari on his blog.

Rich Gelfond: The physical size of the screen (at Universal City Walk) will be different (from the one in Burbank) but both will be significantly better than 35 mm. Are they exactly the same? No. But are they both what we’d consider worthy of our brand? My answer would be “yes.”

Gelfond: IMAX means the most immersive film experience on the planet. 3-D is going to be more obvious to you in IMAX. And in 2-D, IMAX means a special sound system. It means special treatment of the film so that when Star Trek is shown in an IMAX theater, it goes through a digital process where we up-res the movie so there’s more brightness and more contrast.

And with the screen part of it: In all of these multiplexes, IMAX is the biggest screen. But it’s not only screen size. There’s something called “perceived screen size,” which involves the relationship of the viewer to the screen. If you’re in the first row, that screen is going to look a hell of a lot bigger to you than if you’re in the 30th row. We typically take out the first four rows of seats in a theater and move the screen forward so it’s a lot farther forward in an IMAX theater. Also, the screen goes floor to ceiling, wall to wall. By bringing a floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall screen forward toward the audience, the viewer has the perception that the screen is larger than just the physical size.

Wired.com: Still, some people have an expectation …

Gelfond: One issue going on is that people who grew up with the science-sized IMAX screen go into another theater have a certain expectation based on what they’ve seen before. When we put our newer product in markets that never had a IMAX before, people are like, “Wow, this thing is incredible.” But if you’re used to going to City Walk and then you go to Burbank, what you are expecting when you go in might not be exactly what you see.

Wired.com: What’s IMAX Digital and how does that differ from traditional IMAX?

Gelfond: Starting six years ago, we put IMAX into multiplexes with film projectors. Within the last six months, we converted to digital. They’re the same size as the ones that have been in the multiplex for the last six years, but because they’re digital — driven by a hard drive instead of film — our growth has accelerated [digital distribution is less expensive than shipping celluloid prints]. There’s a lot more of them.

Wired.com: Just to be clear, the more recent IMAX theaters at your local multiplex might have a smaller screen than the first-generation IMAX theaters?

Gelfond: The older-generation legacy theaters and science centers take up so much real estate that you could only make them work in a very limited number of locations. In order to make IMAX more accessible around the world, we had to design a product where the economics worked for the studio, the exhibitor and IMAX.

If we stuck to that (larger screen size), not only would IMAX only be in a few cities, but there wouldn’t be a Star Trek or a Transformers or a Harry Potter in IMAX, because the studios couldn’t make enough money distributing to such a limited number of theaters. The only way to get the films we’ve been able to get was by designing a version that provided the IMAX experience but used less real estate.

Readers weigh in

The buck stops with Gelfond, who says that 98 percent of respondents polled in a market survey described themselves as satisfied with IMAX Digital. What do you think? Is IMAX worth the higher ticket price? Weigh in below.

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.